Actaeon

x.com/HellenicVibes/… Still can't quite decide whether BAP has done more good or more harm to our movement. On the one hand, most of his own ideas are pretty sound. On the other, he's probably the main culprit in misleading insufferable little 105-IQ zoomer pricks like this into thinking they've "deeply resonated" with philosophers. I mean WHAT THE FUCK is this kid on about? >Aristotle is the foundation, who "gets read" by Nietzsche. Uh, well, I think just about everyone who wrote in Greek between the 7th and the 4th century "got read" by Nietzsche, since Nietzsche was one of the most thoroughly trained Hellenists of his day. But Aristotle is probably that one among the great philosophers whom N. builds on LEAST. Aristotle's problems are almost never Nietzsche's (except, of course, if one views Aristotle as a Platonist) >who gets incorporated into Heidegger’s reevaluation of Aristotle (with some Heraclitus thrown in) Where this kid gets THIS garbled mess from I have no idea. "Nietzsche gets incorporated into Heidegger’s reevaluation of Aristotle"?: I imagine this is what his 105-IQ brain was able to extract from some "Heidegger For Beginners" paperback - which is definitely all he's read of H. - which mentioned that Heidegger's notion of Being emerged out of Brentano's essay on A. and that later H. lectured on N. I could go on but I won't. Seriously, why does these little pricks exist?

An excerpt from Micheal Millerman's article and argument against Zizek: Zizek does "not want to engage with the substance of right-wing anti-liberalism at the level of political philosophy. This is revealing. Žižek is one of the few thinkers on the left capable of engaging at that level. He has written on Heidegger. He has read Schmitt carefully. He could engage with the argument that Plato’s Republic contains insights about political life that liberalism systematically occludes. He chooses not to, because doing so would require him to take seriously a challenge to the left that doesn’t reduce to populism or resentment. Instead, he gives the populist right’s patriotism a “paranoiac twist”: it’s “envy and resentment directed at what it perceives as external threats,” not genuine love of one’s own. This is psychoanalytic dismissal dressed up as diagnosis. It lets him avoid the question: what if love of one’s own, ordered by reason and oriented toward the good, is not paranoiac but philosophically defensible? What if the classical tradition that grounds such love is not reducible to reaction?" millermanschool.substack.com/p/zizek-called…